The argument for Kent's election to the Hall of Fame has its merits, but also its mysteries.

There's no crying in baseball, which may or may not explain why Jeff Kent's stoic facade crumbled during the press conference in which he announced his retirement last week. A notoriously gruff and prickly personality, Kent had spent the better part of two decades distancing himself from his teammates and the media as much as possible. Thus the sight of him fighting back the tears was surprising, even shocking, given his apparent lack of emotional range. As the legendary sportswriter Frank Graham once wrote of Yankees outfielder Bob Meusel, "He's learning to say hello when it's time to say goodbye."

A more evenly matched series than it may appear at first glance, and one whose outcome may be decided in the trenches.

Is this "the year" for the loyal legions of Cubs fans? Disappointment comes a little more frequently in Wrigleyville the last two decades. It used to be that just mentioning years like "1969" or "1984"—without providing a single detail—could cause a confidently well-perched fan in your nearest hoodie to tumble from his stool in despair. That's no longer the case, not when we get to muck through the messier details of what hurt worst lately, the humiliatingly quick exits in 1989, 1998, and 2007, or the more elaborately agonizing NLCS loss in 2003, or their more infamous losses involving black cats or Leo Durocher or Gatorade-soaked gloves or Steve Garvey. Whatever the self-reinforcing certainty in circulation in the city that this year will be different, the Cubs come into the postseason with a team that makes for a study in contrasts when it comes to its assets: a broad and deep collection of hitters to attack the other team's pitchers with, balanced against a stars-and-scrubs pitching staff that runs perhaps no more than six men deep before you start getting into trouble.

It's never a bad time to start up some good old-fashioned Hall of Fame talk, and utilizing the tactical weapon known as JAWS will help sharpen your arguments.

It's the middle of May, and the annual Hall of Fame voting ritual is as far from the mind as it may reasonably get. Still, questions about Hall of Famers and their potential peers--some of them topical, some more timeless--keep finding their way to my in-box, while my big ol' spreadsheet rarely leaves the recently opened documents list on my iMac. In the process of rounding up some of the better questions to come my way, I've taken the time to create a long-overdue glossary entry for JAWS, where the system is succinctly defined, and where I can stash the current positional standards for easy reference. Those of you in need of a brief refresher are invited to start there.

Greg Maddux throws a gem as Derek watches the Giants and Dodgers duel.

Taking the Dodgers first, they've hit the top of the division after residing in the cellar just a little over two weeks ago, going on an 11 game streak which was broken on Wednesday in Colorado, followed by a three game winning streak coming into today's matchup. Let's take a look at how a few Dodgers have performed during this stretch (courtesy of Dave Pinto's Day by Day Database):

Got milk? Got team chemistry? Got...rally panties? If not, then check out this steroid-free edition of The Week in Quotes.

"That's unfair to him, to single out one incident and I won't single out incidents. It's been a build-up of frustration of our season and this isn't pinned at Milton. This was just a clarification of what this team needs to continue to do if it wants to win."--Dodgers second baseman Jeff Kent, on his heated conversation with teammate Milton Bradley after Bradley failed to score on a Kent double (Los Angeles Times)